Answers without proof
 

Ok, so I've got a few bob lying about and am considering a few things that I want to gather hard proof (one way or the other) on through actual scientific testing.

First things first, I want to know once and for all what the most important selectors are and how much all the various selectors we have contribute to our attraction of another person. The most important part of this would be proving whether or not looks are more or less important than anything else.

What other questions that need answers do people have? I'm writing a nice long list.

it depends on the person,

but here is one for you

take a pic of 10 people of one sex,

ask a member of the opposite sex which they prefer t date.

they will choose based on looks. its like having a vip entry to pick up! otherwise Picking up girls would be HARD & long winded

Hey mate,

How do you plan on differentiating your test from all the others that have been done? As Phil said, many tests have sought to find the biggest factor influencing attraction by showing a few people X amount of pictures and asking them to pick one. All that shows is what people will pick when their options are restricted. Quantifying it as you're implying it would be difficult too, not least because you'd need a huge sample size. There's also variation between genders to take into account meaning that this test would be more like two tests.

Not exactly academic but I've always wondered how well the accent goes down in America.

looks matter but I've always been hansom pick up helped me break hearts.

Well, I think a tiered approach to testing would be best. So what you'd do is you'd get everyone to rate others based on physical looks. You would then also ask them at this point which one they would prefer as a partner.

Then, you would have audio only conversations, no names and no reference to who they were in the photos. This stage only has 2 selectors, vocal pitch and "personality". At this stage people rate both of these and label who they would prefer as a partner. EDIT: Scratch that, it'd be better to go with recorded audio message to eliminate differences in testing.

The final stage is a face to face in which they get to put everything together. Afterwards you get a preferred partner from them and interesting results should happen.

This could also be done in different orders with a variety of different selectors. I believe the final results would vary but patterns should start to emerge. Essentially, if people are choosing anything other than the person they find most physically attractive at the end of the face to face then we are proving that they're favouring something other than physical attractiveness and therefore whatever other selector they're favouring is more important than being physically attractive.

That's where I'm leaning with it anyway, someone who actually knows what they're doing and has the relevant background will be able to do a far more thorough job at creating tests than I. The question wasn't about what the test would be, rigorous tests need to be designed by someone who knows how to design rigorous tests. The question was what others don't we know factually and what would we like to know most?

lots of women when asked 'do you fancy wrestler 'The Rock'?' and shown a picture say "No", but when put in a sealed room with 'The Rock' and told there's no cameras theyre all fucking 'The Rock'.

EDIT Can you smell what The Rock is cooking?

I remember a test that was audio only. They played the same message read by men and asked women to guess which ones are sex worthy. The results where the more sex you have the hotter your voice sounds. Either way fuck all that off and spend your money on rock climbing lessons.

Attraction is not always a choice and it CAN be manipulated as a long as you display the characteristics that attract women, strength (not physical), confidence, etc, etc. Women are hardwired to subconscious look for a mate, (this is not a choice) someone who will protect them, provide for them, produce children and yes looks come into it, but women do not put half as much emphasis on looks as men do.

They basically want alpha males, you don’t even need money as long as you can display ambition and desire to accomplish, this is what turns women on, expensive sports cars don’t get girls wet, its more to do with the kind of man who has got one rather than what he drives.

Woman are probably far smarter than men they are aware that looks fade and alter but the strength of the man, his ability to deal with situations and be a provider is far more attractive to woman.

PU exposes these weakness in women to place higher value on certain characteristics and it works.

Hmm.. I think several of these can be tested under more constraints than absolute rigorous testing.

I can feel a "PUA Mythbusters" youtube series brewing.

That is a brilliant idea. I can see myself testing some of these later.